Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omegatrend

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, article has been improved. Patstuart^talk·edits 19:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Omegatrend

Omegatrend (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable per WP:CORP. Google news search turns up exactly zero hits.RJASE1 ^Talk 23:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Google News Archive which is a better source for judging whether a company meets WP:CORP shows 25 hits and the article cites the New York Post. [1].

On a personal note, someone once asked me to join and it had a sizeable network in Australia in its day. It is verifiable and notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 02:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Rewrite. Very advertising like in its current state. Cut back to a stub and keep for expansion.--ZayZayEM 05:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment (not expressing an opionion on the deletion). looking through the 25 google archive hits, over 1/2 dozen are the same PR report on the MRP software they're using, many relate to their financial trouble, some just mention them in passing, and the rest mention them as part of being an article on New Image International. Seems to be just another Alticor related company that's failed, and been partially revived. Peripitus (Talk) 10:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I wrote the first bit, the second bit (the corporate hagiography) was added later. They're important in the field and study of MLMs and commercial cults in Australia - David Gerard 11:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

  Granted they seem important - I just can't find any news specifically about them ( rather than their financial trouble ). Not expressing an opinion on keeping or deleting the article as I'm keeping in mind WP:TIGER - Peripitus (Talk) 12:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep on the proviso that there are significant efforts to make the article encyclopaedic. There's some significant NPOV and cleanup issues that need to be looked at, but otherwise could be made into a good article with effort. thewinchester 16:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the article is in a bit of a sorry state, but seems notable given Capitalistroadster's comment above. Lankiveil 00:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have taken the time to kick this article in the pants this afternoon, removing most of the crap which was out of order or was direct PR copies, adding referencing section, fact and ref templates. It's also been stubbed. thewinchester 05:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.